ÿWPCB7 Å# ÖUNá %/ 045U:ib£U:«w@å4%9 0@H 0Dˆ 1mÌ 0d94 0JÑ 0T 0^o 0hÍ 0r5 0|§ 0†# B© 0Æ 1uV 0dË 0B/!U>q!U *¯!U*Ù!B)" D3,"DC_" AM¢" 0@ï"#/#±R$W&v~Z(vÓØ) 0«/ 0Š:0 0 Ä0 0´d1 0Ç2 0Ûß2 0ïº3 AO©4Æø4 0D¾5 D/6 B16 0ôN6˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular .%/%D0%1%D2%E3%D4%5%Ó€A%D%j„"ñ‰6"3|xD%2 ÿÿ$Squareð ðà0 à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  àSheltonKendricks2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ2-¦$Squareð ðà0  à< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òApril€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€In€fairness€to€the€trial€judge,€this€case€was€tried€prior€to€our€decision€in€òòLivingstonóó,€andÏthe€trial€judge€correctly€applied€the€then„existing€law€to€this€case.Ì MÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€€Our€cases€indicate€that€the€defendant€is€protected€from€being€placed€in€jeopardy€for€anyÏsimilar€offenses€committed€during€the€entire€time€period€charged€in€the€indictment,€i.e.,€July€1,Ï1990€to€July€31,€1992.€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€742,€n.1€(citing,€òòState€v.€Andersonóó,€748ÏS.W.2d€201,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985)).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(¡+2»x$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑÀ°ÑÑ̰ÑÒ„°ÒÒ4°ÒÔ€XßßXXXÔÔ€ò`óòXXßßÔò òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€­ÙXXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€((XÐd&ÓÞ ÞÌ€›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFiled:œ€€April€28,€1997ó óóóÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à à€€€SHELBY€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ€Vs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€HON.€L.€T.€LAFFERTY,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBARRY€L.€SPECK,à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€No.€€02„S„01„9601„CR„00001ÌÙ€€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌC.€Anne€Tiptonà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌA.€C.€Wharton,€Jr.à àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌPublic€Defenderà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àÌWalker€Gwinnà àà àà àà àGordon€W.€SmithÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àÌòòAt€Trial:óóà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌB.€Alan€Newportà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌMemphis,€Tennesseeà àà àà àJennifer€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌò òÔ€'„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€'XÔÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà à›à àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÇÓÓÑ  Ñà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€review€two€issues:€first,€whether€the€bill€ofÏparticulars€sufficiently€informed€the€defendant€of€the€charges€against€him,€andÏsecond,€whether€reversible€error€was€committed€when€the€trial€court,€applyingÏthe€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€doctrine,€ruled€that€the€victimððs€out„of„court€statements€toÏhis€mother€regarding€sexual€acts€committed€by€the€defendant€were€admissibleÏto€corroborate€his€in„court€testimony.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€defendant€failed€toÏshow€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutionððs€bill€of€particulars€and€that€theÏvictimððs€out„of„court€statements€were€admissible€under€the€fresh€complaintÏdoctrine.€€€The€court,€therefore,€affirmed€the€defendantððs€conviction€forÏaggravated€rape€of€a€victim€who€was€less€than€thirteen€years€of€age.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€when€the€prosecutionÏelected€an€offense€that€occurred€on€a€date€that€differed€from€the€specific€datesÏset€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€œWith€respect€to€the€admissibility€of€the€victimððsÏout„of„court€statements,€this€Court€held€in›€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392Ï(Tenn.€1995),€œthat›€the€doctrine€of€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€does€not€apply€in€childÏsexual€abuse€cases.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Accordingly,€although€we€find€that€admission€of€theÏvictimððs€out„of„court€statements€was€error,€we€conclude€that€the€error€wasÍharmless€in€light€of€the€victimððs€trial€testimony€and€the€overwhelming€evidenceÏof€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Accordingly,€while€we€employÏsomewhat€different€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals.ÌÌÇà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThe€victimððs€proof€is€summarized€as€follows:€€The€victim€was€in€theÏsecond€grade€when€he€met€the€defendant,€Barry€Speck.€€With€the€permission€ofÏhis€mother,€he€began€spending€time€with€Speck€watching€movies,€playingÏbaseball€and€putt„putt€golf,€and€attending€scouting€events.€€During€the€third€andÏfourth€grades,€the€victim€occasionally€spent€the€night€with€the€defendant€andÏslept€with€him€on€a€couch.€ÌÌà àNear€the€end€of€the€victimððs€fourth€grade€school€year,€and€during€theÏsummer€of€1991,€Speck€started€touching€the€victimððs€penis.€€The€behaviorÏescalated€to€mutual€touching,€and€Speck€and€the€victim€masturbated€oneÏanother.€€Although€the€victim€was€ð ðconfusedðð€by€the€sexual€acts,€Speck€told€himÏnot€to€tell€anyone€what€was€occurring€because€he€would€be€ð ðlocked€up€inÏprison.ðð€€ÌÌà àDuring€the€fifth€grade,€and€the€summer€of€1992,€the€victim€stayed€with€theÏdefendant€three€or€four€nights€per€week.€€Speck€began€committing€acts€ofÏfellatio€on€the€victim,€and€eventually,€he€asked€the€victim€to€perform€fellatio€onÏhim.€€Although€he€ð ðdidnððt€feel€right€about€it,ðð€the€victim€complied€because€SpeckÏacted€ð ðreal€cold€and€meanðð€if€he€refused.€€The€victimððs€œmother›€becameÏconcerned€about€the€time€the€victim€was€spending€with€Speck€and€initiallyÏplaced€limits.€€Speckððs€response€was€anger€and€hurt.€€Later,€in€August€of€1992,Íœthe€mother€told›€the€victim€he€could€no€longer€see€the€defendant.€€The€victimÏresponded€by€telling€his€mother€about€the€sexual€acts€committed€by€Speck.ÌÌà àTamara€Carly,€a€friend€of€the€victimððs€mother,€testified€that€she€initiallyÏthought€Speck€was€like€a€ð ðbig€brotherðð€to€the€victim.€€After€observing€Speck€andÏthe€victim€in€the€summer€of€1992,€she€began€to€think€that€the€defendantððs€publicÏbehavior€in€touching€and€hugging€the€victim€was€excessive€and€inappropriate.€ÏAfter€Speck€was€arrested,€he€left€several€taped€telephone€messages€on€CarlyððsÏanswering€machine€in€which€he€professed€his€love€for€the€victim€and€hisÏdistress€over€the€charges.€€According€to€Carly,€he€also€left€several€audio€tapesÏcontaining€messages€for€the€victim.€€In€one€message,€Speck€stated€that€the€loveÏbetween€he€and€the€victim€was€not€ð ðpervertedðð€and€that€ð ðhad€[he]€known€[he]Ïwas€going€to€be€accused€of€being€perverted,€[he]€would€have€found€anotherÏkid.ðð€€In€another€tape,€Speck€described€how€he€would€spread€his€legs€whileÏurinating€to€allow€the€victim€to€urinate€from€behind€him€at€the€same€time.€€Finally,ÏSpeck€also€said€that€he€ð ðwas€the€only€person€who€knew€how€many€hairs€theÏvictim€had€on€his€testicles.ðð€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Barry€Speck,€testified€and€admitted€a€close€relationshipÏwith€the€victim,€but€denied€that€he€had€committed€sexual€acts.€€HeÏacknowledged€that€the€victim€often€stayed€overnight€at€his€apartment,€butÍdenied€that€any€sexual€acts€were€committed.€€The€defendant€admitted€leavingÏthe€phone€messages€and€tape€recordings€with€Tamara€Carly.Ìà àÌÌà@ àò òòòBILL€OF€PARTICULARSó óóóÌà àThe€indictment€alleged€that€the€offense€of€aggravated€rape€wasÏcommitted€between€July€1,€1990,€and€July€31,€1992.€€In€response€to€theÏdefendantððs€motion€for€a€bill€of€particulars,€the€prosecution€supplied€theÏfollowing€information:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€victim,€[M.W.],€whose€birth€date€is€June€12,€1981,€alleges€thatÏbetween€July€1,€1990€and€July€31,€1992,€the€defendant€didÏengage€the€victim€in€repeated€acts€of€fellatio€whereby€theÏdefendant€would€perform€the€act€on€the€victim€and€the€victim€wouldÏperform€the€act€upon€the€defendant.€€Additionally,€the€defendantÏengaged€the€victim€in€masturbation€whereby€the€defendant€wouldÏmasturbate€the€victim€and€the€victim€would€masturbate€theÏdefendant.ÌÌà8 àThese€acts€occurred€repeatedly€between€July€1,€1990€and€July€31,Ï1992,€including€on€or€about€June€12,€1992€and€on€or€about€JuneÏ29,€1992.€€Said€acts€occurred€at€the€defendantððs€residence€and€inÏthe€defendantððs€car.ÌÌÓÓÌAt€trial,€the€victim€testified€that€numerous€sexual€acts€consisting€of€mutualÏtouching€and€masturbation€were€committed€beginning€near€the€end€of€his€fourthÏgrade€year€in€1991.€€He€also€testified€that,€beginning€in€the€fifth€grade,€theÍdefendant€committed€acts€of€fellatio€upon€him€and€that€he€performed€fellatioÏupon€the€defendant.€€These€acts€continued€through€the€summer€of€1992.ÌÌà àIn€order€to€protect€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€unanimous€jury€verdict€underÏarticle€I,€section€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€the€trial€court,€at€the€close€ofÏthe€Stateððs€proof,€ordered€the€prosecution€to€elect€a€single€offense€upon€which€itÏsought€the€aggravated€rape€conviction.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2d€134Ï(Tenn.€1993).€€The€prosecution€elected€to€predicate€the€aggravated€rapeÏconviction€on€the€first€incident€in€which€the€victim€committed€fellatio€at€theÏdefendantððs€apartment.€€The€incident€occurred€between€August€of€1991€andÏMay€of€1992,€when€the€victim€was€in€the€fifth€grade.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€maintains€on€appeal€that€the€prosecutionððs€bill€ofÏparticulars€did€not€provide€sufficient€information€about€the€charged€offense.€ÏMoreover,€the€defendant€argues€that€he€was€misled€when€the€prosecutionÏpredicated€the€offense€on€an€incident€that€did€not€occur€on€either€June€12,€1992,Ïor€June€29,€1992,€the€specific€dates€provided€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€The€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€defendant€failed€to€show€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€prosecutionððs€election€of€a€date€that€differed€from€the€specificÏdates€set€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€€We€agree.ÌÌà àThe€rules€provide€that€upon€a€defendantððs€motion,€ð ðthe€court€may€directÏthe€filing€of€a€bill€of€particulars€so€as€to€adequately€identify€the€offense€charged.ðð€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(c).€€The€purpose€of€the€bill€of€particulars€is€to€provideÏinformation€about€the€details€of€the€charge€when€necessary€for€a€defendant€toÏprepare€his€or€her€defense,€to€avoid€prejudicial€surprise€at€trial,€and€to€enableÏthe€defendant€to€preserve€a€plea€of€double€jeopardy.€€Information€that€may€beÏrequired€in€the€bill€of€particulars€includes,€but€is€not€limited€to,€details€as€to€theÏnature,€time,€date,€or€location€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2dÏ739,€741„42€(Tenn.€1991).Ì€€€Ìà àAlthough€a€court€should€make€every€effort€to€see€that€the€prosecutionÏsupplies€critical€information€in€the€bill€of€particulars,€we€have€observed€that€inÏcases€involving€child€sexual€abuse,€the€prosecution€may€be€unable€to€supplyÏspecific€dates€on€which€alleged€offenses€occurred.€€In€such€cases,€however,Ïwhere€the€victim€is€too€young€to€recall€specific€dates,€ð ðthe€child€may€be€able€toÏdefine€the€time€of€the€offense€by€reference€to€such€memorable€occasions€in€aÏchildððs€life€as€birthdays,€seasonal€celebrations€and€holidays,€the€beginning€orÏend€of€the€school€year,€or€visitations€by€relatives.ðð€€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€851€S.W.2dÏat€137;€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€820€S.W.2d€at€741„42.€€If€the€State€is€truly€unable€toÏprovide€even€an€approximate€time€or€date€of€the€offense€by€means€of€aÏdescriptive€reference,€ð ða€conviction€may€nonetheless€be€affirmed€if€in€the€courseÍof€trial€it€does€not€appear€that€the€defendantððs€defense€has€been€hampered€byÏthe€lack€of€specificity.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€We€explained€in€òòByrdóó€thatÌÓÓÌà8 àit€is€only€by€òòpost€hocóó€examination€of€the€matter€that€the€court€will€beÏable€to€determine€whether€deficiencies€in€the€bill€of€particularsÏprevented€the€defendant€from€preparing€an€adequate€defense,Ïcaused€undue€and€prejudicial€surprise,€or€made€untenable€a€laterÏplea€of€double€jeopardy.€€In€other€words,€the€trial€court€cannotÏdetermine€whether€or€not€the€defendant€has€been€hampered€in€hisÏdefense€until€the€court€knows€what€proof€the€state€will€offer€as€toÏtime€and€place€of€the€offense,€and€how€this€evidence€relates€to€theÏactual€theory€of€defense.ÌÌÌòòIdóó.€at€741.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€judge€found€that€additional€information€wasÏnecessary€to€assist€the€defendant€in€preparing€for€trial,€and€correctly€ordered€theÏprosecution€to€supplement€the€skeletal€charge€contained€in€the€indictment.€€TheÏprosecution€supplied€details€with€regard€to€the€nature€of€the€sexual€acts,€theÏlocations€in€which€the€acts€occurred,€and€the€range€of€time,€including€dates€onÏwhich€acts€may€have€occurred.€€The€defendant€does€not€argue€that€theÏparticulars€were€inadequate€to€preserve€a€plea€against€double€jeopardy.× ƒ0 ××  ×€ÏInstead,€he€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€at€trial€when€the€State€failed€toÏadhere€to€the€two€specific€dates€set€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àPreliminarily,€we€observe€that€the€trial€judgeððs€painstaking€effort€to€ensureÏthat€the€prosecution€complied€with€its€duty€to€elect€a€single€offense€successfullyÏnarrowed€the€time€frame€of€the€offense.€€We€also€observe€that€there€is€noÏindication€in€the€record€that€the€prosecution€intentionally€sought€to€mislead€theÏdefense.€€Although€the€State€listed€two€specific€dates€in€the€bill€of€particulars,€itÏdid€not€limit€the€offenses€to€those€two€days;€to€the€contrary,€the€bill€of€particularsÏstressed€that€the€offenses€were€ongoing.€€When€the€victim€testified€at€trial€thatÏnumerous€offenses€occurred€during€a€time€frame€that€encompassed€the€June€ofÏ1992€dates€set€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars,€the€prosecution€elected€to€proceedÏon€an€offense€described€in€the€victimððs€testimony€by€reference€to€his€grade€inÏschool€and€summer€vacations.€€This€procedure€was€entirely€consistent€with€thatÏprescribed€by€òòState€v.€Sheltonóó,€òòsupraóó,€and€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,€òòsupraóó.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€defendant€failed€to€show€either€during€or€after€trial€that€heÏwas€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutionððs€election€of€an€offense€that€occurred€on€aÏday€that€differed€from€the€dates€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€The€defendantÏcategorically€denied€the€charges,€and€there€is€no€indication€that€he€was€misledÏor€prejudiced€by€the€Stateððs€bill€of€particulars.€€For€instance,€the€defendant€didÏnot€present€an€alibi€defense€for€the€specific€dates€in€June€of€1992,€nor€did€heÏoffer€any€other€defense€geared€toward€those€specific€dates.€€Similarly,€theÏdefendant€did€not€offer€any€defenses€post„trial€that€he€would€have€used€at€trialÍwere€it€not€for€the€specific€dates€set€forth€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€Accordingly,Ïwe€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€hisÏdefense€at€trial.ÌÌà@ àòòò òFRESH€COMPLAINTó óóóÌà àThe€fresh€complaint€doctrine€as€applied€in€Tennessee€traditionallyÏallowed€a€victimððs€out„of„court€statements€regarding€a€sexual€offense€to€beÏintroduced€at€trial€to€corroborate€the€victimððs€in„court€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòPhillips€v.ÏStateóó,€28€Tenn.€246€(1848);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€212€Tenn.€464,€370€S.W.2d€523,Ï528€(1963);€òòState€v.€Diesóó,€829€S.W.2d€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€UnderÏòòPhillipsóó,€the€fact€of€a€victimððs€complaint,€as€well€as€the€details,€was€admissibleÏduring€the€prosecutionððs€case€in€chief.€€28€Tenn.€at€251.€€ÌÌà àThe€doctrine€evolved€from€an€ð ðexpectationðð€that€the€victim€would€make€anÏð ðimmediate€outcryðð€following€a€sexual€offense.€€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2dÏ597,€600„601€(Tenn.€1994).€€As€we€discussed€in€òòKendricksóó:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àBecause€juries€were€allowed€„„€sometimes€even€instructed€„„€toÏdraw€negative€inferences€from€the€[victimððs]€failure€to€complainÏafter€an€assault€[citation€omitted],€the€doctrine€of€ððfresh€complaintððÏevolved€as€a€means€of€counterbalancing€these€negativeÏinferences.€€Used€in€this€way,€the€ððfresh€complaintðð€doctrineÏallowed€the€prosecutor€to€introduce,€during€the€case€in€chief,Ïevidence€that€the€victim€had€complained€soon€after€the€rape.€€ItsÏuse€thereby€forestalled€the€inference€that€the€victimððs€silence€wasÏinconsistent€with€her€present€formal€complaint€of€rape.ÌÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€601.€€Although€we€recognized€that€any€ð ðexpectationðð€that€a€victim€of€sexualÏabuse€should€react€in€a€prescribed€manner€is€fundamentally€flawed,€weÏretained€a€modified€form€of€the€doctrine€in€cases€where€the€victim€is€an€adult:€inÏsuch€cases,€the€fact€of€the€victimððs€complaint€is€admissible€during€theÏprosecutionððs€case€in€chief,€but€the€details€of€the€incident€are€not€admissibleÏunless€and€until€the€credibility€of€the€victim€is€attacked.€€òòIdóó.€at€603.€Ì€Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Livingstonóó,€907€S.W.2d€392€(Tenn.€1995),€we€revisited€theÏfresh€complaint€doctrine€as€applied€in€cases€where€the€victim€is€a€child.€€In€soÏdoing,€we€distinguished€the€rationale€which€led€us€to€retain€the€modifiedÏdoctrine€in€òòKendricksóó:ÌÓÓÌà8 àRetention€of€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€in€cases€involving€adultÏvictims€of€sexual€offenses€furnishes€no€justification€for€extendingÏthe€rule€to€cases€involving€child€victims.€€The€expectation€thatÏððnormalðð€women€will€complain€after€a€sexual€offense,€if€everÏapplicable€to€anyone,€is€certainly€not€applicable€to€child€victims€ofÏsexual€offenses.€.€.€.€à àÌÌà8 à[U]nlike€the€presumptions€regarding€adult€victims,€juries€do€notÏnecessarily€presume€that€children€fabricate,€nor€do€they€presumeÏthat€a€child€will€complain€immediately.€€Having€reluctantly€retainedÏthe€doctrine€of€fresh€complaint€in€the€fact€of€its€many€shortcomingsÏin€cases€involving€adult€victims,€we€cannot€reach€the€same€resultÏfor€child€victims.€€òòThe€historic€premises€which€supported€ourÏretention€of€the€rule€in€adult€victim€cases€simply€do€not€support€theÏapplication€of€the€doctrine€in€child€victim€casesóó.ÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.€at€394„95€(emphasis€added).€€While€abandoning€the€fresh€complaint€doctrineÏin€such€cases,€we€recognized€that€many€out„of„court€statements€made€by€theÏvictim,€such€as€prior€consistent€statements,€excited€utterances,€and€statementsÏmade€for€medical€diagnosis€and€treatment,€will€still€be€admissible€under€theÏexisting€rules€of€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€394.€à àÌÌà àHaving€held€that€the€fresh€complaint€doctrine€is€no€longer€applicable€inÏcases€where€the€victim€is€a€child,€it€follows€that€the€admission€of€the€victimððsÏstatement€to€his€mother€pursuant€to€the€doctrine€was€error.€€The€next€question€is€Ïwhether€the€admission€of€these€statements€constitutes€reversible€error.€€TheÏstatements€made€by€the€victim€to€his€mother€were€brief,€contained€few€details,Ïand€were€accompanied€by€a€limiting€instruction€to€the€jury.€€By€contrast,€theÏvictimððs€testimony€at€trial€clearly€described€his€relationship€with€the€defendantÏover€a€period€of€years,€as€well€as€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€sexual€actsÏcommitted€by€the€defendant.€€The€jury€obviously€accredited€this€testimony€overÏthe€defendantððs€blanket€denials€of€wrongdoing.€€Moreover,€when€the€victimððsÏtestimony€is€coupled€with€the€remaining€evidence€of€guilt€and€the€record€as€aÏwhole,€we€do€not€find€that€the€admission€of€the€victimððs€out„of„court€statementÏmore€probably€than€not€affected€the€jury€or€prejudiced€the€judicial€process.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€defendant€was€sufficiently€informed€of€the€chargesÏagainst€him€and€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€prosecutionððs€election€of€an€offenseÏoccurring€on€a€date€other€than€the€specific€dates€set€out€in€the€bill€of€particulars.€€ÏWe€also€conclude€that€the€admission€of€the€victimððs€out„of„court€statements€toÏhis€mother€constituted€error,€but€it€was€not€reversible€error€because€of€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€guilt.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÏjudgment€upholding€the€conviction€for€aggravated€rape€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓÏà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:ó ó€€ÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Reid,€JJ.